Karnataka High Court
K Jaffar Vali S/O K. Hussain Sabi vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7726
WP No. 101799 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.101799/2018(S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
K. JAFFAR VALI S/O. K. HUSSAIN SABI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, JUNIOR ENGINEER,
CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SIRUGUPPA,
BALLARI DISTRICT, R/O: NO.63, 27TH WARD,
AZEEZ MANZIL,
NEAR KHOORI THANA MOSQUE,
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, S.S.BETURMATH,
PADMAJA TADAPATRI AND
S.A. SANDUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Digitally signed VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
by V N
BADIGER
Location: High 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL
Court of
Karnataka ADMINISTRATION VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER,
VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED:08.12.2017 ISSUED IN NO.NAE 117
DMK 2011, BENGALURU PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
HEREIN, AS BEING ARBITRARY ERRONEOUS, CONTRARY TO LAW,
EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-"R") AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7726
WP No. 101799 of 2018
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner
seeking issue of writ of certiorari quashing the
Government Order dated 8.12.2017 produced at
Annexure-R, by which the petitioner was dismissed from
the service in terms of Rule 8 (viii) of the Karnataka Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
was working as Junior Engineer in the Office of City
Municipal Corporation, Shirguppa, Ballari District. While
he was in service during the year 2008, a complaint was
filed against him of he demanding and accepting bribe of
Rs.14,000/- on 21.6.2008 from one Sri. Vemaraddi. J.,
who is Grade-III Contractor of Shiraguppa, Ballari district,
for the purpose of inspecting the work and to prepare the
bill for the road work executed by him. A Criminal case
was registered against the petitioner in Spl. CC No.
11/2009 on the file of the Prl. District and Special Judge,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7726
Ballari. After the trial and on appreciation of the material
evidence placed on record, the petitioner was acquitted of
the offences alleged against him, by the judgment and
order dated 17.04.2012. And in the meanwhile, enquiry
was initiated against the petitioner by Upalokayuktha in
suo moto proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
3. The set of facts and witnesses were one and the
same both in the criminal proceedings as well as in the
inquiry proceedings. The Upalokayuktha after the inquiry,
recommended to the 1st respondent for imposition of
punishment of dismissal of service of the petitioner. The
second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner,
which was replied. The respondent Government without
taking into consideration of the reply submitted by the
petitioner and without even appreciation of material
evidence made available on record, more particularity the
acquittal of the petitioner by the criminal Court as well as
non availability of the material evidence in the inquiry of
Upalokayuktha, dismissed the petitioner from service.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7726
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating
the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition takes
this Court through the evidence of PW.1 recorded on
26.12.2013 produced at Annexure-H and submits that the
said witness had denied the entire facts and
circumstances that was placed before the Upalokayuktha
by the Disciplinary Authority. He further submits that
even the said witness was declared hostile and was cross
examined extensively by the Presenting Office. However,
nothing worth has been elicited from the said PW.1. He
takes this Court through the evidence of deposition of
PW.2, who is a shadow witness, who has also pleaded
complete ignorance about the entire incident. Thus,
referring to these depositions, he submits that there is
not even an iota of material evidence worth elicited from
the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, the recommendation
made by Upalokayuktha is one without any basis. He
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7726
further submits that the imposition of punishment by the
Disciplinary Authority without considering the material
evidence and the reply given by the petitioner is arbitrary
and perverse, warranting interference of this Court.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the petitioner relies on the following judgments:
1. 2018 (1) AKR 515 - Umesh Vittal Biradar
V/s. State of Karnataka and another.
2. ILR 1987 KAR 2419 - Venkatachala Shetty
V/s. State of Karnataka.
3. C.A. No. 8258/2009 dated: 31/01/2022 - United
Bank of India V/s. Biswanath.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that mere
acquittal in the case of criminal case would not be a
ground for discharge of the petitioner from the inquiry
conducted by the Upalokayuktha. He further submits that
though PW.1 has turned hostile but the fact of demand
and acceptance of the bribe has come on record and in
this aspect of the matter, the Upalokayuktha has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7726
recommended for dismissal of the service of the petitioner
which has been accepted and accordingly, the imposition
of punishment of dismissal has been passed by the
respondent Disciplinary Authority warranting interference
by this Court.
7. Heard and perused the records.
8. It is now settled law that where the
departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings
are based on identical and similar set of facts, and charge
against the delinquent before the departmental
proceedings and the criminal Court being one and the
same, the order of dismissal based on the said facts and
evidence is liable to be set aside.
9. Notwithstanding the said principle of law, in the
instance case, reading of evidence of PW.1 as well as the
evidence of PW.2 shows that they have spoken nothing
about the incident alleged to have taken placed. Even
though PW.1 has been elaborately subjected to cross
examination by the Presenting Officer, after holding him
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7726
to be a hostile witness, nothing has been elicited in
support of the allegation.
10. This Court in identical situation in the case
of Umesh Vittal Biradar V/s. State of Karnataka and
another, reported in 2018 (1) AKR 515, at para No.12
of the judgment has held as under:
"12. Of-course, it is in the highest wisdom of the
employer to impose appropriate punishment on
his employee on a proved charge. The bottom line
of the matter is whether the finding of guilt
recorded by the Enquiry Officer accepted by the
Upa-Lokayukta was legal and justified. Absolutely,
there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer
from whatever quarter that the petitioner
demanded and accepted gratification to do any
official work for the complainant. Of-course, the
complainant at the initial stage lodged complaint
against him but turned hostile to his own
complaint allegations. Mere complaint in the
absence of corroboration by its author, inviting
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7726
inference that the petitioner had demanded and
received bribe amount is illogical, skeptical and
perverse. Human conduct is interpreted/perceived
in accordance with the understanding of the
perceiver. The registration of a FIR by itself shall
not amount to proof of commission of the offence,
that is not in the scheme of either criminal
jurisprudence or service law. In the absence of
corroborative evidence to the complaint, we are of
the firm opinion that charges of demand and
receipt of gratification was not proved in the
enquiry."
11. The facts and circumstance of the case
would not evince the credibility regarding the manner in
which the evidence was produced before the Inquiry
Officer and absolutely, there is no appreciation of the
evidence either by the Inquiry Officer or by the
Disciplinary Authority while handing over the punishment
of dismissal. There is also no whisper with regard to
Disciplinary Authority, considering the reply given by the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7726
petitioner to the second show cause notice. Thus, non
consideration of reply of the petitioner to the second show
cause notice is material irregularity going to the root of
the matter.
12. In that view of the matter, the order of
dismissal is set aside and the respondents authorities are
directed to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and
all the benefits, which he is entitled to in accordance with
the law. Such exercise shall be done within a period of 8
weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order
and shall notify the place of reporting by communication
to the petitioner.
SD/-
JUDGE
VB/CT-ASC
